[starman2003]

A blockade was also a problem in WWII. Sure the Soviets were considered particularly dangerous but there was an altenative, in theory, to continuing the war-giving up before they advanced too far west. Unconditional surrender was hardly worse than the constant terror bombing, and the enemy was constantly advancing anyway, but the Germans didn't give up until they were overrun. I don't think there's any doubt that the nazi regime had a FAR better grip on power than the Kaiser. Britain was bouyed up in 1940-41 largely by the prospect of American entry into the war; Churchill himself in his 1940 speech expected the "new world, with all its power and might, to step forth to the rescue and liberation of the old." In contrast, the Reich held out to the bitter end without that kind of hope. By the time the Japanese entered the war, the US did too.

[Smilin' Dave]

A blockade was also a problem in WWII.

Probably not as bad however. German industry spent a longer period catering to the civilian population in WWII and Germany was less interwined in the world market thanks in part to the dismantling of its merchant marine and colonies post WWII.

Sure the Soviets were considered particularly dangerous but there was an altenative, in theory, to continuing the war-giving up before they advanced too far west.

Which assumes that the Soviet army (and Stalin) would stop, which is far from clear.

Unconditional surrender was hardly worse than the constant terror bombing, and the enemy was constantly advancing anyway, but the Germans didn't give up until they were overrun.

Unconditional surrender would have meant occupation, including occupation by Soviet troops.

Germany also had the advantage of pointing to their history and what happened the last time they surrendered early. The memory of Versailles remained. This is something that the Germans didn't have in WWI for obvious reasons.

I don't think there's any doubt that the nazi regime had a FAR better grip on power than the Kaiser.

While this is true I reject any suggestion that this was the only reason Nazi Germany held together for longer.

Britain was bouyed up in 1940-41 largely by the prospect of American entry into the war

Since they had to wait till what, December 1941 for that, I'm sure that also had a negative effect (waiting for what seems impossible). Further it took a while before the effect of a full US entry into the war was felt.

Churchill himself in his 1940 speech expected the "new world, with all its power and might, to step forth to the rescue and liberation of the old."

While it was Churchill's policy to get the US directly involved, it still doesn't mean it was a sure thing.

In contrast, the Reich held out to the bitter end without that kind of hope.

Post war interviews and interogations indicate that people still believed a miracle was possible. Either some kind of 'super weapon', or a breakdown of the alliance against them (which had a certain historical precedent). So they certainly had some hope.

[starman2003]

I meant giving up to the West, preferably by June '44, by moving the whole army to the east and letting the western armies take over. By 1944 there was no doubt that defeat was coming so it logically made no sense to continue the war. Regardless of the kind of occupation or peace they'd get, that was bound to happen anyway, and preferable to a war in which they were constantly being killed and blasted. Even Soviet occupation was hardly worse. The Reich did hold out in part because of the unconditional surrender policy, which no doubt made many Germans determined to make the enemy pay as high a price as possible for their victory. But it was also a reflection of the Nazi "grip" on Germany. Few Germans still believed in so called miracle weapons by 1945, but the Reich still had to be overwhelmed. Sure, US entry into the war may not have been certain in 1940 but based on the experience of WWI the British were certainly hopeful. It meant real hope whereas the Reich had nothing comparable in its darkest period. Other differences: Britain had the channel and a big intact navy to protect it, and its defeats weren't as serious in 1940, since the army got away at Dunkirk whereas the German defeats at Stalingrad etc were pretty big. Therefore German persistence to '45 was all the more remarkable and largely a reflection of authoritarian cohesion and discipline. It is also noteworthy that the Reich faced no great resistence until it fought another totalitarian state, the USSR. Unlike Britain it had no geographical barrier to nazi invasion but also unlike Britain it had built up huge land forces which could absorb and repel the attack.

[starman2003]

Btw I don't know mch about Australians but recall a book; FOR THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE, in which the protagonist, Dawes, "breaks down under the lash" in a penal colony. Did any of your ancestors ever "break down under the lash" back when the 'cat" was in "almost constant use" in NSW? You'd think that would wipe the smile off your face.

[Smilin' Dave]

I meant giving up to the West, preferably by June '44, by moving the whole army to the east and letting the western armies take over.

This idea was basically a pipe dream. The allies wouldn't have agreed to it, they had no reason/desire to do it. Moving all those troops to the east would have been hard, and supplying them even harder. Abandoning most of Germany to occupation would probably have bought a very unfavourable response from the German population.

By 1944 there was no doubt that defeat was coming so it logically made no sense to continue the war.

See the end of my previous post. Many believed some kind of last minute gamble could save them. Further they could always keep fighting in the hope of a better settlement. So to say there was 'no doubt' is just rubbish.

Regardless of the kind of occupation or peace they'd get, that was bound to happen anyway, and preferable to a war in which they were constantly being killed and blasted.

Not all occupations are the same. I would have prefered to be in occupied West Germany to East Germany for example. I suspect you also underestimate the power of more abstract ideas like freedom, nationalism etc. for the common man. For them it isn't all the same.

Even Soviet occupation was hardly worse.

The Soviet occupied zones were systematically pillaged (industries packed up and moved for example). Protests resulted in troops shooting people. Not to mention the whole looting and rape thing that followed immediately after the war. I think that is a lot worse.

But it was also a reflection of the Nazi "grip" on Germany.

I never contested that, only that it wasn't the only element. I'm not even sure you could prove that it was the most important element.

Few Germans still believed in so called miracle weapons by 1945, but the Reich still had to be overwhelmed.

German POWs in camps in 1946 were still hoping for some kind of miracle. Interviews and other materials indicating this are run regularly on the History Channel.

Sure, US entry into the war may not have been certain in 1940 but based on the experience of WWI the British were certainly hopeful.

WWI was quite horrific for the British and they knew that they couldn't do it all over again. In fact by the end of WWII it looked like Britain might have to drop out with its ever shrinking manpower reserves.

They probably also noted that the US had stayed out of WWI until the last minute, and that the Western front nearly collapsed before the US could make a more serious contribution.

Britain had the channel and a big intact navy to protect it

Also meant it was isolated and vulnrable to U-boat actions.

and its defeats weren't as serious in 1940, since the army got away at Dunkirk

Without its heavy equipment. Many British soldiers didn't make it back from Dunkirk either. It was also a clear strategic setback.

whereas the German defeats at Stalingrad etc were pretty big.

Yes and no. Strategically it didn't have much effect (as the majority of AGS did escape) and much of the stigma was wiped out temporarily by Manstein's victory at Kharkov. Germans had also had a diet of victory after victory by this point, where as Dunkirk was the middle of a series of British disasters.

It is also noteworthy that the Reich faced no great resistence until it fought another totalitarian state, the USSR.

Britian itself put up such a strong resistance that Nazi Germany didn't defeat them either...

Note also the troubles that the Germans had in the USSR in 1941 were largely the results of key individuals, rather than the state. So in the South in was the commander, Kirponos. In the pockets, individual soldiers deciding that they would keep fighting, or trying to get just a little closer to home, rather than quit.

Unlike Britain it had no geographical barrier to nazi invasion

Eastern Poland, Belorussia and the Ukraine could be called a geographic barrier because of their sheer size, stretch the Axis to the breaking point.

[starman2003]

The alllies wouldn't have agreed to it..

Regardless of whether the western allies would have agreed to a separate peace, they would've eagerly invaded and taken over areas the Germans had evacuated. The Germans btw, were able to shift troops from west to east fairly quickly e.g. around April 1944 two SS Panzer divisions had to be sent from France to Russia in an emergency. Most Germans would have preferred western occupation and the opinions of the commn man could often be ignored in a dictatorship anyway.

Even Soviet occupation was hardly worse than say, getting firebombed in Dresden, which might've been avoided had the war ended sooner.

Britain itself put up such a strong resistance that Germany didn't defeat them either.

Had it not been for the channel, the Reich could have crushed Britain in a week or two. The key difference between Britain and Russia was prewar government policy; there are some courageous or capable individuals in any nation. Whereas Britain neglected key aspects of national defense, Stalin built up enormous armies. Eastern Poland and the Ukraine were no barrier; the Germans took over all of that area and went farther. The problem was the huge Soviet military.

[Spin]

Whereas Britain neglected key aspects of national defence, Stalin built up enormous armies. Eastern Poland and the Ukraine were no barrier; the Germans took over all of that area and went farther. The problem was the huge Soviet military.

Yes, and the UK built of a rather large Navy, which it needed for its defence. And a decent airforce. It didn't needed a massive army.

[starman2003]

It didn't needed a massive army

Great English. The experience of WWI indicated that large armies were needed. And it should've been clear well before September 1939 that another war on the continent, requiring a big army, was likely, but Britain had maybe 4 divisions at the time. Contrast that with the dimensions of Stalin's army, or Hitler's army, and it should be clear that democracy can be quite a luxury.

[Spin]

Btw much of the RN was built long before WWII.

True, but note that they also maintained a large navy, for the defence of the UK.

The experience of WWI indicated that large armies were needed.

For projection of power into Europe, not for the defence of the UK.

[starman2003]

For projection of power into Europe, not for defence of the UK.

Preventing the fall of France, and Egypt etc, was important for defense of the UK since, for example, the German occupation of France provided better bases for U-boat warfare against Britain, and a possible invasion. Obviously big ground forces were needed, but Britain neglected them.

[useless]

As soon as someone hears the word 'Nazi', images of War, death, slavery and destruction come to mind. However, not many know how Nazism made Weimer Germany into a super power. A country that lost all pride in itself and endured poverty due to the treaty of Versailles turned into a powerful state in a short time. What are the pros and cons of Nazism? Could there be other forms of Nazism that are not as extreme as Nazi germany?

Pros
- Sense of community and national pride.
- Strong economy
- Strong military
- Environmentally friendly
- generous to hard working people
- Physically, mentally and emotionally strong people

Cons
- Blames other races for Weimer germany's problems and social injustices (In reality it was capitalism)
- Imperialistic militarily (Lebensraum)
- use of terror tactics on political enemies (Gestapo and such)
- Little Freedom of speech

Please add more if i missed things.

What a piece of NAZI-scrap.
You don't have the foggiest of NAZI-Germany. Just revisionist propaganda.

All your pros are myth.
1. The strong economy has been built be the Republic of Weimar (construction of roads, decline of inflation, stabilization of wages and prices). What the NAZIs did was to exclude the jews, take away their money and wealth. There second mean was to lock the women at home like the Saudis do today. In 1938 Germany was bankrupt.
2. There has never been a sense of community. There was indeed a deep sense of fright and people were anxious of KZ. This was the reality for one side of the people, the everyday people, the intelligencia (don't forget the Jews), the artists and the science. Refugees contribute to arts and science in several other countries: England, USA, USSR, Australia.
Only a minority had been true NAZIs, although the whole administration, the courts and so on stick to them after been refurbished of liberals, socialists and also conservative.
3. Environment is silly.
4. The NAZIs had never been generous to people. In truth they stick together with trusts. The workers were payed fewer for more work.
5. The people had been as healthy as before. Apart from the NAZIs themselves. The main leaders had been all addictet to drugs and alcohol.

The only thing is true, that some people had a better self-esteam. Because the had a weak personality and built it upon national symbols.

The cons are more deep as you state them:
1. The NAZI exaggereted the ideology of races and discrimination, not only towards the Jews and the Slavic tribes. And on this point you can see that the anti-bolshevistic attitude was in reality attracted towards all slaves. An aggressive nationalism was pushed and targeted to conquer colonies for German settlements and farmers. People living there are planned to be enslaved, expelled or killed (like the slaves or the Africans).
2. The NAZIs went to war. Not only the SS had killed millions of people, although the Wehrmacht did so. 50 000 000 died in war for the NAZI myth.
3. The NAZIs destroyed the German economy.[/quote]

[PittofBritain]

Preventing the fall of France, and Egypt etc, was important for defense of the UK since, for example, the German occupation of France provided better bases for U-boat warfare against Britain, and a possible invasion. Obviously big ground forces were needed, but Britain neglected them.

You quite clearly do not understand British military thinking. It has always been Britain's role in European wars to do the following three things:

a) Fund their continental allies through loans
b) Use a massive navy to blockade the enemy coastline and prevent any invasion of Britain
c) Use aforementioned naval superiority to attack enemy outposts elsewhere in the world
d) Send a small but professional force of men to fight

This has pretty much been the way that Britain has fought European wars ever since the beginning of the 1700s. It was also the way that Britain had intended to fight World War One and World War Two until those conflicts escalted to the point that large armies had to be deployed.

It has never been a British military policy to maintain a large army - much more important to the British is a large fleet.

[starman2003]

It has never been a British military policy to maintain a large army-much more important to the British is a large fleet

It should have been clear that fighting Germany required a large army, and that war with Germany was probable by the late thirties but the British army was still tiny in September 1939.

[starman2003]

All your pros are myth

No, the Reich obviously DID have a strong military, by 1939, and to a considerable degree it DID promote the health and well being of its citizens, notably the youth. Shirer was no pro-nazi but he did note the contrast between the healthy German soldiers and the unhealthy British soldiers, who had been neglected by their society while the young Germans had ben physically nurtured in the Hitler Youth. The original poster was also largely right about pride and sense of community. The nazis couldn't maintain themselves solely by fear; they obviously enjoyed widespread, strong support among the German people.

[Smilin' Dave]

Regardless of whether the western allies would have agreed to a separate peace, they would've eagerly invaded and taken over areas the Germans had evacuated.

...but they would have kept going and hit the German army from behind. Sounds like a really sucky strategy. That is why you need agreement.

The Germans btw, were able to shift troops from west to east fairly quickly e.g. around April 1944 two SS Panzer divisions had to be sent from France to Russia in an emergency.

April 1944 isn't June 1944... or 1945 for that matter, which would have been more relevant. Again, if you don't have a real peace with the allies, they will bomb the rail networks and assembly areas while you try to move the entire German army eastward (which is bigger than 2 divisions...).

Most Germans would have preferred western occupation and the opinions of the commn man could often be ignored in a dictatorship anyway.

Public opinion was clearly quite important to Hitler, see for example his attempts to not go to a war economy until the last possible minute. If people refuse to go sign up for the army any more, you have a crisis which will be very difficult to solve.

Even Soviet occupation was hardly worse than say, getting firebombed in Dresden, which might've been avoided had the war ended sooner.

Hmm... constant occupation by someone you hate and fear (not to mention all the short term nastiness), which historically went on for decades vs. a few one off attacks.

Stalin built up enormous armies. Eastern Poland and the Ukraine were no barrier; the Germans took over all of that area and went farther. The problem was the huge Soviet military.

So, despite comrade Stalin's uber-massive army he still got hosed in 1941? The British had a small army... and also got hosed. Not exactly a good case for either approach.

Seems to me that a big army, or a small one for that matter, is pointless if the the troops won't fight. British and Soviet troops didn't quit, and to return to the original theme: Britain was a democracy and still stood firm.

The experience of WWI indicated that large armies were needed.

Actually the British drew the lesson from WWI that a large army hadn't helped it all that much, since it dilluted quality and distracted from their more standard doctrine, of attacking an enemy from the periphery until it tires.

Britain actually ended up with a manpower shortage in 1944 onwards thanks to its expanded army, which impacted on industry etc.

Contrast that with the dimensions of Stalin's army, or Hitler's army, and it should be clear that democracy can be quite a luxury.

Yet one of those big armies was toppled and the other one took disproportionate casualties. Meanwhile the decadent democracy managed to survive and ended up being a winner, with the help of yet another democracy.

Preventing the fall of France, and Egypt etc, was important for defense of the UK since, for example, the German occupation of France provided better bases for U-boat warfare against Britain, and a possible invasion. Obviously big ground forces were needed, but Britain neglected them.

Well, Egypt didn't actually fall in the end and most of Britain's desert war was fought by fairly small yet mobile forces, not a good advertisment for massive armies.

As for France... could the British have ever had an army big enough to hold France alone? No, nor would the British have had a good reason to think that they would have to in the late 30s.

It should have been clear that fighting Germany required a large army, and that war with Germany was probable by the late thirties but the British army was still tiny in September 1939.

To hammer home a point from above: other nations were supposed to provide the numbers, for example the French and Soviets. By the time this was realised to be too optimistic, the British did something about it...

Now, here is a really tricky question: Is a strong military the domain of Nazism (or even a totalitarian government generally*) only or can it be copied by others? If it can be copied, then Germany's strong military was not really a 'pro' of Nazism (Nazi Germany maybe, but it seems other nations did have a strong military) specifically.

*And Fascist Italy is not a good demonstration of a totalitarian state with a powerful army...

[starman2003]

April 1944 isn't June 1944...

What about December 1944? Even at that late date, the Germans were able to move troops from all over Europe west to participate in the Ardennes attack.

Public opinion was clearly quite important to Hitler...

Yes but as Shirer wrote "..one of the advantages of dictatorship over demcracy was that unpopular plicies which promised good results could be pursued without an internal rumpus."

...despite comrade Stalin's uber massive army he still got hosed in 1941? The British had a smaller army ..and also got hosed..

There was a very big difference: Stalin's army withstood and repelled the Germans, by the winter of '41-'42, largely because it was so big, and prewar military investment was so great.

Yet one of those big armies was toppled and the other took disproportionate casualties. Meanwhile the decadent democracy managed to survive and ended up being a winner, with the help of another democracy

The decadent democracy would've been crushed in 1-2 weeks had it not been for the lucky geographical accident of the channel. Contrast that with Stalin's success in withstanding the bulk of the Wehrmacht essentially alone for over a year. Had it not been for a dictatorship to absorb and decimate the bulk of German strength, the allies wouldn't have gotten far, or even survived. If the democracies had suffered anywhere near as many casualties as the USSR, public support for the war would've evaporated.

Is a strong military the domain of a totalitarian

Of course it can be copied but dictatorship still had a big advantage-all other thngs being equal-they weren't of course. A dictatorship can better impose the sacrifices needed for a big conventinal force in peacetime, whereas a democracy generally can only follow suit in wartime, when the need for sacrifice is obvious even to the common man. But then it could be oo late. If one waits for war to actually break out, and neglects defenses to an extent, the war could be lost at the start. Democracy is susceptible to this problem because one doesn't win elections by imposing sacrifices e.g. guns before butter, when the need isn't obvious to many people.

[Smilin' Dave]

What about December 1944? Even at that late date, the Germans were able to move troops from all over Europe west to participate in the Ardennes attack.

...and how long did that take him? Also the Ardennes offensive was untaken with a lot of new and re-equipped units, not primarily by units from the Eastern front (which complained at the time that they could have used the reinforcements better).

Yes but as Shirer wrote "..one of the advantages of dictatorship over demcracy was that unpopular plicies which promised good results could be pursued without an internal rumpus."

Shirer is not a historian, nor would I say he was into politics. He was a journalist. His text isn't well liked in academic circles these days. I might add that it was also written a long time ago.

Dictatorships do indeed have less of an issue with public opinion, but to suggest that they can do anything without considering the effect on public opinion is absurd. The simple fact is that the public will probably end up executing those orders/policies, and nothing can happen without them.

There was a very big difference: Stalin's army withstood and repelled the Germans, by the winter of '41-'42, largely because it was so big, and prewar military investment was so great.

Yet in 1941 the Red Army was still using large amounts of increasingly dated equipment, like the BT series of tanks or most of their airforce. Also the Red Army had to be constantly bolstered with reserve and militia units even in 1942, which indicates that it wasn't big enough to begin with. Interestingly, towards the end of the war Soviet units were actually getting smaller and more efficient.

I repeat that this massive army would have been useless if the people had not chosen to keep fighting. France had a pretty big army too, and got rolled.

The decadent democracy would've been crushed in 1-2 weeks had it not been for the lucky geographical accident of the channel.

The very butch dictatorship was crushed despite this barrier.

Had geography been different, the British armed forces would have been different, so this is really a stupid point.

Contrast that with Stalin's success in withstanding the bulk of the Wehrmacht essentially alone for over a year.

Losing most of the Western Soviet Union isn't something to be proud of, especially since these were some of the more productive parts of the nation.

If Stalin had been truely alone he would have been in very deep trouble. All the units fighting the British in Africa and any money spent on securing France from invasion would have been thrown against the Soviets. Would this have broken them? Who knows. But it seems the democracy managed to chip in something very important. The Soviets were also being supplied by the democracies, making up for some of the loses of 1941.

Had it not been for a dictatorship to absorb and decimate the bulk of German strength, the allies wouldn't have gotten far, or even survived.

You have yet to prove that it was the result of dictatorship that kept the Soviets fighting. In actual fact Stalin's dictatorship probably undermined the war effort in those crucial first few months, which is not a good recomendation.

If the democracies had suffered anywhere near as many casualties as the USSR, public support for the war would've evaporated.

Proof? As I mentioned to you earlier (might have been a different thread), the British had suffered some very serious defeats in the early part of WWII, yet rather than pulling back they fought back even harder, which is the opposite of what you are suggesting.

A dictatorship can better impose the sacrifices needed for a big conventinal force in peacetime

The reason democracies don't do this is because in the long term, it's bad for the economy. South Africa had this problem, basically troops in the line are not workers in factories. Even the Soviets after WWII had to keep the majority of its forces on reserve status.

So if the big advantage of dictatorship is that it can force stupid policy through, it doesn't surprise me that it is such an unpopular solution.

[starman2003]

..and how long did that take them?

Previously I suggsted the Germans should've moved their army east prior to D-Day, either to try to contain the Soviets first or just prevent their occupation of Germany in a war likely to b lost anyway. This could've been accomplished had they started by the late winter.

...to suggest they can do anything...

Didn't say that, but they DO have an advantage.

France had a pretty big army too, and got rolled

As some Germans noted, the Russians fought harder than the French. The Red Army was still using some old equipment in 1941 but its tank etc production rates were high, and the quality of newer armor was good. Stalin had better prepared his country than the democracies.

Had geography been different...

The Reich was overwhelmed, despite the barrier of the English channel, because it was vastly outnumbered and outgunned, and had been decimated largely by another dictatorship. In contrast, the odds were more even in 1940. The democracies had IIRC 135 divisions vs 136 German, and essentially lost in one week! You can't assume the British army would've been adaquately larger without the channel; NATO conventional strength lagged well behind that of the Warsaw Pact later. You don't win elections by compelling conscription and guns before butter in peacetime.

Losing most of the Western Soviet Union...

Considering that much of the terrain was flat, lacking geographical barriers, and the Soviets faced the most experienced army in mobile warfare, they didn't do so badly, and ultimately prevailed, in part due to their foresight in relocating some industry to the Urals.

You have yet to prove that it was the result of dictatorship that kept the Soviets fighting

I said that dictatorship had ensured adaquate and then some preparations for war. Stalin did exactly what had to be done well before the war; he ruthlessly and rapidly industrialized and militarized the country. His foresight and determination saved the slavic peoples from annihilation.

Even had the USSR been fighting alone, it would've survived, and then some. The Germans would've had to keep troops on occupation duty elsewhere, and some combat units IN CASE the west made trouble. As for aid, it didn't amount to much prior to '43, and by then the Soviets had the upper hand.

..the British had suffered some very serious defeats in the early part of WWII...

Even in their worst defeats they took nowhere near as many casualties as the Soviets. Most of their army got away at Dunkirk. The Soviets IIRC took more caualties in one battle-Stalingrad-than the US took everywhere. Democracies have been pretty sensitive to casualties, and their enemies have known and tried to exploit this e.g. Vietnam; it was also Saddam's hope, albeit hopeless in the latter case. It is very hard to imagine the democracies still fighting had they suffered really big casualties like the Soviets. The Japanese knew they couldn't really win in late '44 but were hoping that high US casualties would force the US to negotiate.

The reason the democracies don't do this is because in the long term, it's bad for the economy

No, the real reason is that sacrifice is just too unpopular. Try to win an election by depriving people of cars i.e. halting car production, to build more tanks. Deficit spending is also bad for the economy but democracy ensures it's a chronic problem.

[Ombrageux]

No, the real reason is that sacrifice is just too unpopular. Try to win an election by depriving people of cars i.e. halting car production, to build more tanks. Deficit spending is also bad for the economy but democracy ensures it's a chronic problem.

Yes because dictatorships never indulge in deficit spending

And no democracy has ever had balanced budgets

You just have this base assumption that democrats are idiots, and dictators are far-sighted visionaries. No democrats tend to be moderates and dictators tend to be crackpots who do crazy things like collectivize land, a great leap forward, kill X ethnicity we don't like etc. which are hugely more damaging than unbalanced budgets (which dictatorships do anyway so your point is moot).

[Smilin' Dave]

Previously I suggsted the Germans should've moved their army east prior to D-Day, either to try to contain the Soviets first or just prevent their occupation of Germany in a war likely to b lost anyway. This could've been accomplished had they started by the late winter.

I have already pointed out why just abandoning the western front was a damn stupid idea to you. It clearly hasn't sunk in.

Further, you think ALL of the German troops in Western Europe could just be packed up and moved around without any kind of repurcussions or difficulty. Try this on for size: The German rail network can't move a 1/3rd of the armed forces in (if I am understanding you properly) 2 months, especially if they intend to keep using the railways to move supplies for industry and the army on the eastern front.

Unless you think the troops should just drive/walk there. In which case you have just worn out all the equipment and exhausted all of your troops, sacrificed a lot of territory without a fight and have not fundamentally changed the balance of power.

Didn't say that, but they DO have an advantage.

Well, you are basically advocating that Hitler could just elect to lose the war, without any recourse to what will happen to him if he does this.

As some Germans noted, the Russians fought harder than the French.

One of those some being me. I don't need to be reminded. Now, was Soviet (wasn't just Russians fighting, don't be lazy) resilience a result of Stalinism or something deeper?

The Red Army was still using some old equipment in 1941 but its tank etc production rates were high

Tank production took a massive hit thanks to the Soviets losing so much territory. I wasn't till late 1942 that the Soviets were really looking at using the T34 as its main battle tank.

Some old equipment is also an exaggeration. Roughly 10% of Soviet armour in 1941 was the T34 (1940 model mostly, which wasn't as good) or KV series of tanks. This was roughly 2000 tanks scattered across the entire front. The vast bulk was equal or worse than German armour.

Stalin had better prepared his country than the democracies.

Stalin, the dictator who no one could disagree with, left his troops totally unprepared for the German attack. Stalin, whose brilliant army was totally unprepared to fight even a small country like Finland, which seem have been a massive shock. Stalin, who diverted massive funds to a navy that was never finished and wouldn't have been at all useful. Stalin, who purged his officer corps and continued to victimise his commanders, particularly his general staff, once the war had begun?

Maybe it was a good thing the democracies were not prepared in this manner.

The Reich was overwhelmed, despite the barrier of the English channel, because it was vastly outnumbered and outgunned

Because it didn't go to a war economy till 1943... why? The effect on public opinion. Clearly didn't prepare his country well on a strategic level, again largely ignoring his own commanders.

In contrast, the odds were more even in 1940. The democracies had IIRC 135 divisions vs 136 German, and essentially lost in one week!

German concentrations of troops was much better, giving better superiority at the local level. Had German plans not been changed at the last minute the German army would have been slaughtered.

Besides, I thought you said the allies were unprepared, yet now you say they were equal in 1940. Which is it?

You can't assume the British army would've been adaquately larger without the channel; NATO conventional strength lagged well behind that of the Warsaw Pact later.

Quality was on the side of NATO, not to mention NATO doctrine until the 1980s revolved around the use of nuclear weapons to stop a fully Warsaw pact attack. So your example is wrong. Not to mention that a difference of geography would have changed the way the British etc. fought wars from the very dawn of time, so using an example from real history will not apply well in an reconception because the channel was removed.

You don't win elections by compelling conscription and guns before butter in peacetime

West Germany was still using conscription until the collapse of the Soviet threat, yet their government (a democratic government) didn't collapse in a screaming heap.

On the other hand the Soviets proceeded to ruin their economy by puting guns before butter.

Considering that much of the terrain was flat, lacking geographical barriers

The terrain around Stalingrad is also relatively flat yet the Germans were defeated. Meaning? Cities and towns should have been barriers. The Germans crossed a number of rivers, which should have been barriers. The forests (and yes, even the flat bits of the Soviet Union have those) were barriers. The lack of roads were a barrier.

None of these barriers mattered because of poor morale, poor decision making and lack preparation. Again: Stalin's level of preparation is not very impressive.

in part due to their foresight in relocating some industry to the Urals.

Which didn't really start until the invasion started, so not an example of preparation. Arguable the British moved their industry across an ocean, which is even smarter.

I said that dictatorship had ensured adaquate and then some preparations for war. Stalin did exactly what had to be done well before the war; he ruthlessly and rapidly industrialized and militarized the country.

The country was militarised before Stalin was leader of the country and industrialisation was not motivated by fear of war, otherwise most of the industry built would have been specifically designed to produce war material rather than tractors and machine tools.

His foresight and determination saved the slavic peoples from annihilation.

His lack of foresight despite evidence to the contrary almost lost him the war too.

Even had the USSR been fighting alone, it would've survived, and then some.

The allies were providing Stalin the raw materials that he had lost to the Axis, so I find that hard to believe. Not to mention the old trucks debate.

As for aid, it didn't amount to much prior to '43, and by then the Soviets had the upper hand.

They had the upper hand but were miles away from even looking like they would win the war. 1943 ended with the Germans still deep in Soviet territory. Allied supplies helped to mechanise Stalin's armies, allowing them to reclaim most of it in 1944.

Even in their worst defeats they took nowhere near as many casualties as the Soviets.

Strategically they tended to be more important however.

Most of their army got away at Dunkirk.

Without heavy equipment. A lot of troops didn't get away either. Add to this the fact that France was now out of the war.

The Soviets IIRC took more caualties in one battle-Stalingrad-than the US took everywhere.

Not really a recommendation of the Soviet way of war then is it?

Democracies have been pretty sensitive to casualties, and their enemies have known and tried to exploit this e.g. Vietnam; it was also Saddam's hope, albeit hopeless in the latter case. It is very hard to imagine the democracies still fighting had they suffered really big casualties like the Soviets. The Japanese knew they couldn't really win in late '44 but were hoping that high US casualties would force the US to negotiate.

The Soviets were pretty sensitive about casualties in Afghanistan too, so what have you proved? The difference is that the democracies tend to take less casualties because they approach was differently.

No, the real reason is that sacrifice is just too unpopular. Try to win an election by depriving people of cars i.e. halting car production, to build more tanks. Deficit spending is also bad for the economy but democracy ensures it's a chronic problem.

You think it is as simple as one factor? It probably shouldn't surprise me that an advocate of dictatorship has such a simplistic view of the world.

Didn't LBJ win an election based largely on his promise to take a hard line against Vietnam, which by association meant more military spending? Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war to get 'peace with honour'? George W. Bush was re-elected despite the costs of the Iraq war and potential for other wars. Abraham Lincoln won the election during the Civil War despite the costs related to that...